This is getting old. Yes, Catholics can do science. Catholicism itself isn't being utilized in scientific research. Catholicism itself hasn't taught us any scientific knowledge. It has on multiple occasions motivated people to oppose scientific progress when it conflicts with what it teaches. I don't care how much money Catholics spend on science, or if a scientist happens to be catholic. Let's move on.

"If the Bible is deemed true then it cant be open to reinterpretation after 2,000 years."

That doesn't make sense. You can interpret the bible any way you want, but you're still operating under the assumption that the bible is true. If you presuppose that the bible is true, and god made man, and this can't be questioned, you are not open to alternate explanations. You can't tap dance around this.

"You do know that is how mysticism came about don't you? The following of false Gods etc etc etc."

What? Mysticism was around before your religion, and why should I think your god isn't false?

"Evidence convicts innocent people on a daily basis, that is also a fact. Even scientists use evidence to come to false conclusion and accept as true things that are later shown to be false."

What's your point? That evidence doesn't matter? That's absurd. It's the best we have. Would you suggest we just convict people based on what we feel is right? Based on faith?

Scientists are not immune from errors yet all you have written suggests that if they say the evidence points to this then it is likely true. In time it may be shown that all you hope is true is proven true. Equally you may die and discover that all you doubted was in fact true. The question is which will happen first? "

No, I never said that if scientists say the evidence points to something it's likely to be true. You have some nerve calling me disingenuous. I said that if the evidence (which is directly observable) points to something, it's most likely true. This seems pretty obvious to me. I'm kind of shocked that you would dispute this. Evolution is an observable fact, when it comes to the distant past, we have to rely on evidence. Would you agree that a paternity test is the best way to determine whether someone is the father of a child? Is that proof? Because the ERV evidence functions on the same principle as a paternity test.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard the threats of hell before. Doesn't sway me.

"You really do have black and white opinions of religion don't you? It is a pity your not Gay, then you could complain about how Islam commands that you should be thrown off a tall building but I guess your real complaint is with Christianity, or rather Catholicism rather than Religion."

Black and white? I don't get what you mean. You brought up Catholicism not me. Your opinion that I'm somehow biased against Christianity is completely unreasonable.

This is a thread about evolution, I'm only forced to talk about religion because Creationists think that a literal interpretation of the Bible should take precedence over science.